Iran's Hand

Caroline Glick paints a grim picture of a dangerous Middle East with Iran emerging as its dominant power.

... Iran's mullahs win no matter how the revolts pan out. If weakened regimes maintain power by appeasing Iran's allies in the opposition - as they are trying to do in Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen - then Iranian influence over the weakened regimes will grow substantially. And if Iran's allies topple the regimes, then Iran's influence will increase even more steeply.

Moreover, Iran's preference for proxy wars and asymmetric battles is served well by the current instability. Iran's proxies - from Hezbollah to al- Qaida to Hamas - operate best in weak states.

This not only echoes Leonard Peikoff's warnings about Iran (both at the time of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and again, after the atrocities of September 11, 2001), but it shows him to be correct. In addition, each time, Peikoff urged military action against that terrorist regime, and each times, our "leaders" continued our decades-long policy of appeasement and half-measures.

Glick informs us, along somewhat similar lines, that there is a ray of hope: There are protests against the mullahs in Iran, and we should support them.

So long as the Iranian regime remains in power, it will be that much harder for the Egyptians to build an open democracy or for the Saudis to open the kingdom to liberal voices and influences. The same is true of almost every country in the region. Iran is the primary regional engine of war, terror, nuclear proliferation and instability. As long as the regime survives, it will be difficult for liberal forces in the region to gain strength and influence.

I agree with Glick's last sentence, but disagree that supporting the protests is the only way to topple the mullahs. Sadly, as Glick indicates and news reports confirm, the Obama Administration is poised to do almost exactly the opposite of what it ought to be doing now.

-- CAV